I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied? I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.
I don't remember any neo-cons with pitchforks at these rallies.
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
C++ seems to be language of choice for geniuses to hang themselves these days.
That definition is actually wrong (if you quoted it correctly), and that book is not a standard CS textbook on programming languages or type systems. I prefer Milner's definition of type safety which he summarized as "A well-typed program cannot go wrong." Notice this is a statement about programs, not languages. When you consider the actual definition of type safety for a language--that given formally defined evaluation rules and type rules for the language, it can be proven that no execution of any well-typed program will encounter a type error--it is clear that the only definition of type safety that matters is static type safety. Few languages achieve type safety, and almost none achieve static type safety.
In reality nearly all languages are hybrids and perform some static checks and some dynamic checks. Typically, though not always, this means that a particular "safe", "statically typed" language cheats the above definition by simply defining semantics for a dynamic check failure and thus not considering it an "error".
Java is a mostly statically typed language, whereas Python is a mostly dynamically typed language. After all, both languages enforce a number of rules on programs at compile time, and both perform dynamic safety checks of one kind or another.
I remember we used to have this things called "phonebooks" or something. It required opening a "book" and binary searching....and remembering street names. Can't be bothered with that now. Oooh silly cats on youtube! Huh? Oh shit, browser went down, can't change my clothes. Better lie on the bed and stare at the ceiling. God I wish this ceiling had better resolution.
Javac does essentially no optimization, while the dynamic compiler in the VM does a hell of a lot. Besides, the overhead of a method call is almost nothing compared to the overhead of constructing the StringBuffer, appending contents, building a String, and actually doing the IO. Why would you waste your time with a pre-processor?
Why then would you want to risk $800M in the first place when you can let your competitor spend the $800M, pay them a paltry $400M for the one thing that succeeded and then split the much larger profit to be made? Extra points if your marketing department is much better and you take a much larger fraction of the resulting market.
They had evidence from emails that these secret deals were occurring...
Oh noes! Not secret deals! I have news for you, most deals between businesses are "secret" by this standard.
As to illegality, It was clear to me at least that the GP was clearly questioning the validity of the anti-trust laws. One way to challenge a law is by deliberately breaking it. I am not claiming that Intel was making a political statement, but what if they were?
Because "take over" typically doesn't mean "compete with", "build a more efficient replacement", or "drive out of business", or a host of other alternate meanings. Further you refer to the "means of production" as if it were some large singular entity (presumably with the magical ability of producing), when using this phrase. And suppose these mythical controllers of this mythical entity don't give their consent to your plan--do you intend to use force, or the government (but that's redundant isn't it)?
When the controllers of the means of production fail to keep the means of production working properly, smart people look to take over the means of production.
I'm curious whether you think freedom of ownerships covers freedom to do a bad job. Apparently you think not. Let me guess--you consider yourself one of these "smart people" to whom the government should hand over the means of production to?
I always knew that campus was full of shit, but I wouldn't have guessed which kind.
How much CO2 does it take to transport the goats to and from the site? They must weigh a hell of a lot more than the grass clippings or the lawnmower equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what they'd have done if they were there while Bush was in office if he had been similarly parodied? I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.
I don't remember any neo-cons with pitchforks at these rallies.
Brian Kernighan would retort,
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
C++ seems to be language of choice for geniuses to hang themselves these days.
That definition is actually wrong (if you quoted it correctly), and that book is not a standard CS textbook on programming languages or type systems. I prefer Milner's definition of type safety which he summarized as "A well-typed program cannot go wrong." Notice this is a statement about programs, not languages. When you consider the actual definition of type safety for a language--that given formally defined evaluation rules and type rules for the language, it can be proven that no execution of any well-typed program will encounter a type error--it is clear that the only definition of type safety that matters is static type safety. Few languages achieve type safety, and almost none achieve static type safety.
In reality nearly all languages are hybrids and perform some static checks and some dynamic checks. Typically, though not always, this means that a particular "safe", "statically typed" language cheats the above definition by simply defining semantics for a dynamic check failure and thus not considering it an "error".
Java is a mostly statically typed language, whereas Python is a mostly dynamically typed language. After all, both languages enforce a number of rules on programs at compile time, and both perform dynamic safety checks of one kind or another.
I remember we used to have this things called "phonebooks" or something. It required opening a "book" and binary searching....and remembering street names. Can't be bothered with that now. Oooh silly cats on youtube! Huh? Oh shit, browser went down, can't change my clothes. Better lie on the bed and stare at the ceiling. God I wish this ceiling had better resolution.
And I'll go one step farther:
Make it a felony for any legislator to pass legislation that impacts anyone who wasn't eligible to vote for them. There's an idea....
I wasn't aware that normalizing risk is now a legitimate function of government. Perhaps I was absent for that debate?
Schools are for children, I was under the impression government was for adults.
This is why Windows 7 will come with a handy "delete everything and reinstall from scratch" button.
This time, the grammarian's are with you's.
Javac does essentially no optimization, while the dynamic compiler in the VM does a hell of a lot. Besides, the overhead of a method call is almost nothing compared to the overhead of constructing the StringBuffer, appending contents, building a String, and actually doing the IO. Why would you waste your time with a pre-processor?
Oh my god, help me, I forgot how to write utility methods!
Why then would you want to risk $800M in the first place when you can let your competitor spend the $800M, pay them a paltry $400M for the one thing that succeeded and then split the much larger profit to be made? Extra points if your marketing department is much better and you take a much larger fraction of the resulting market.
Oh noes! Not secret deals! I have news for you, most deals between businesses are "secret" by this standard.
As to illegality, It was clear to me at least that the GP was clearly questioning the validity of the anti-trust laws. One way to challenge a law is by deliberately breaking it. I am not claiming that Intel was making a political statement, but what if they were?
Cough and thought are the same, sorry.
Makes my off by one errors seem so quaint. Add 12 zeros and soon you're talking about real money.
I am noting your continual use of ad hominem attacks. They don't make your original statement any more precise or accurate.
Now onto that "choosing your words carefully" topic.
Define "take over".
And another reason that it's difficult to have a serious discussion on slashdot is ad hominem attacks. I read real GOOD, thanks.
Why do I get that impression?
Because "take over" typically doesn't mean "compete with", "build a more efficient replacement", or "drive out of business", or a host of other alternate meanings. Further you refer to the "means of production" as if it were some large singular entity (presumably with the magical ability of producing), when using this phrase. And suppose these mythical controllers of this mythical entity don't give their consent to your plan--do you intend to use force, or the government (but that's redundant isn't it)?
Sorry, the aging process of wine is far more complicated than you state and continues even after bottling.
I dispute the premise that maximizing tax revenue is a legitimate function of government.
I'm curious whether you think freedom of ownerships covers freedom to do a bad job. Apparently you think not. Let me guess--you consider yourself one of these "smart people" to whom the government should hand over the means of production to?
I'm curious where you think the CO2 released in brush fires comes from.
I always knew that campus was full of shit, but I wouldn't have guessed which kind.
How much CO2 does it take to transport the goats to and from the site? They must weigh a hell of a lot more than the grass clippings or the lawnmower equipment.
I guess they really must hate "Trampled Underfoot".
Fair point, gunbroker.com has a rolling bid system and it works much better :-)